What's wrong with being Liberal?

PVS

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
I do think that you generally favor raising taxes,

(fiscal responsibility as opposed to trickle down recklessness. but hey, feel free to oversimplify as per typical ignorant talking points. yes, liberals LOOOOVE taxes. they all just bend over and scream "**** ME I.R.S.!!!! IM A NAUGHTY LITTLE WHORE!!!!"

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
penalizing private enterprise

you mean that they just penalize ALL private enterprise? or do you mean holding businesses responsible for their misdeeds as opposed to the current "just look the other way...they sign our checks" policy.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
reducing U.S. military strength

directly proportionate to the reduction of illegal invasion and occupation of other soveriegn nations

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
redistributing private wealth,

please elaborate

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
subsidizing the continued existence of a government dependent strata of society,

as opposed to just rendering them homeless? as if liberals are responsible for perpetuating poverty. got scapegoat?

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
weakening prosecutorial power against violent criminals,

again, got scapegoat? hey, remember spelljammer?
how are liberals taking away prosecutorial power?

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
promulgating laws from the judicial bench

perhaps im mesmorised by all the big words, but how is the public announcement of laws a liberal act...or bad at that? elaborate please.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
and undermining traditional social norms of self-restraint and personal responsibility.

again, demonising and scapegoating liberals. logic: if you are against abortion and hate homos, you are adhering to traditional social norms and personal responsibility....or something

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
Therefore, I oppose you.

good. seems to validate my stance.

Bardock42

Originally posted by PVS
hey, remember spelljammer?

Oh my...you nailed the head on the hit.

Soleran

Originally posted by PVS
you mean that they just penalize ALL private enterprise? or do you mean holding businesses responsible for their misdeeds as opposed to the current "just look the other way...they sign our checks" policy.

Or lets even talk about raising minimum wage, not only does that hurt the small employeer by raising the cost of the direct compensation for their labor the Govt also gets to tax the small business owner more for paying their employees more, kinda crazy but true. If the market doesn't accept the increase in cost who gets hit the hardest? The small business owner, whose employee's who just got a "raise" are now unemployed again.

Yup he certainly was entertaining.

PVS

yeah, thats great, only 5.05 an hour is not livable.
so people should work themselves to death for peanuts so
that businesses dont have a bit of a tougher time taking off?
its compromise and it must be met. believe me, people wont be
dancing in the streets when they're making 6.50 an hour (or whatever). would you?

Soleran

Nope which is why I also specified the small employeer.

More specifically to the point I CHOOSE to not work for someone for minimum wage or anywhere near that amount of money. However lets say we are a small employeer we are a daycare! All of our people make minimum wage five dollars an hour and all of a sudden it goes up to 6.50 an hour.

Where does the money come from? That means the daycare's costs go up over 2,000 dollars(assuming 35 hours a week from each employee) a month (minus the increase in payroll tax's the employer has to pay to employee those people.) Now add health benefits, vacation time etc etc did the cost of daycare go up to offset these costs? Probably not in the short run so what happens? Alot of people get laid off and either cannot find employement or they go on social security etc.

You DESTROY the small employer economy and get alot of folks fired. Sounds awesome doesn't it, lets raise minimum wage (wrong!)

xmarksthespot

People who work for minimum wage in the U.S. get health benefits and vacation time?

Aren't they mostly illegals.

Soleran

Originally posted by xmarksthespot

Aren't they mostly illegals.

no, but slightly comical none the less.

It's also conversations like these that make me have disdain for some "liberal" (read socialist) ideologies as beliefs.

PVS

Originally posted by Soleran
Nope which is why I also specified the small employeer.

More specifically to the point I CHOOSE to not work for someone for minimum wage or anywhere near that amount of money. However lets say we are a small employeer we are a daycare! All of our people make minimum wage five dollars an hour and all of a sudden it goes up to 6.50 an hour.

Where does the money come from? That means the daycare's costs go up over 2,000 dollars(assuming 35 hours a week from each employee) a month (minus the increase in payroll tax's the employer has to pay to employee those people.) Now add health benefits, vacation time etc etc did the cost of daycare go up to offset these costs? Probably not in the short run so what happens? Alot of people get laid off and either cannot find employement or they go on social security etc.

You DESTROY the small employer economy and get alot of folks fired. Sounds awesome doesn't it, lets raise minimum wage (wrong!)

so, lets drop the wage to $2.00 an hour and EVERYONE will be employed (and starve)

you do realise that not everyone can just 'choose' to make more than minimum wage? im sorry, but this whole economic doomsday scenario of raising minimum wage has been argued with every single raise in minimum wage.

xmarksthespot

Originally posted by Soleran
no, but slightly comical none the less.

It's also conversations like these that make me have disdain for some "liberal" (read socialist) ideologies as beliefs. Hmm well apparently approximately 5% of the U.S. workforce is comprised of illegal immigrants, at least what is reported. While 13% (in 2003) of the workforce earned between $5-8/hour.

So I guess not "mostly" but a large amount nonetheless. Unless one wants to believe illegal immigrants are earning huge sums of money/hour.

Soleran

Originally posted by PVS
so, lets drop the wage to $2.00 an hour and EVERYONE will be employed (and starve)

Since this is so much nonsence we'll just walk right around this hunk of shit

Yup I agree that somethings will change and markets will fold that cannot handle the economic burden. Not everyone deserves to make more then minimum wage either so thats not my concern. My concern is with the undue burden placed on the SMALL EMPLOYER we'll say under 20 fully employed compared to the benefit of 1.50$ more an hour.

That one daycare I mentioned alone with fica tax and the increase would have its cost go up 27,000 dollars a year. Do that to 10 business's and now its 270,000 a year etc etc. Raising minimum wage is a weak link to "fixing" the economy.

xmarksthespot

Employeer isn't a word. Stop putting it in bold caps. It's annoying.

Capt_Fantastic

Originally posted by Soleran
Since this is so much nonsence we'll just walk right around this hunk of shit

Yup I agree that somethings will change and markets will fold that cannot handle the economic burden. Not everyone deserves to make more then minimum wage either so thats not my concern. My concern is with the undue burden placed on the SMALL EMPLOYER we'll say under 20 fully employed compared to the benefit of 1.50$ more an hour.

That one daycare I mentioned alone with fica tax and the increase would have its cost go up 27,000 dollars a year. Do that to 10 business's and now its 270,000 a year etc etc. Raising minimum wage is a weak link to "fixing" the economy.

Well, if the minimum wage hike is going to shut down the small buisness owner, then you'd think all those big buisness lobbyists would support a hike in the minimum wage. But it isn't. The reason you've been led to believe that the wage increase is going to bankrupt the small buisness owner is that it's good for the political system in this country to get you to believe that the American way is still mom and pop corner shops where you can get a nickle coal and a slice of resh apple pie for a dime. Well, those bullshit days are over. If you up the minimum wage by a buck and a half, it's going to cost Wal-Mart with it's hundreds of thousands of employees a hell of a lot more than it's going to cost the little guy with 20 employees. And if he can't afford that hike, he's not operating in the black anyway.

Soleran

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Well, if the minimum wage hike is going to shut down the small buisness owner, then you'd think all those big buisness lobbyists would support a hike in the minimum wage. But it isn't. The reason you've been led to believe that the wage increase is going to bankrupt the small buisness owner is that it's good for the political system in this country to get you to believe that the American way is still mom and pop corner shops where you can get a nickle coal and a slice of resh apple pie for a dime.

Now after reading this I hope you have something to plop down as proof to substaniate your claims. I can tell you the cost because I work with small business's everyday. I know how much it costs them do you? I can talk about tons of cases of small employers and the real impacts they have, can you?

The first thing that will happen employee benefits will disappear, then you could come back and whine about something else smile

A cost shift will occur and the little guy won't be any better for it.

Capt_Fantastic

In a cost benefit analysis, I'm sure it looks good for the big guy and bad for the little guy. That's because the big guy has a hell of a lot more money than the little guy. But, thew cost of operating would be overwhelming for the little guy if the big guy wasn't making it that way. How is a 20 man operation going to compete with a Wal-Mart?

I'm not "whining" about anything. I'm looking at it realistically.

What's shutting down more small buisness owners operations? The minimum wage, or Wal-Mart? Get over your sick fasciantion with the little guy...he doesn't exist anymore. And by all means, wow us with your facts....I'd love to know what you do for the little guy.

Imperial_Samura

For soma reason this reminds me of the Roman's back in Republican times. To serve in the army your average pleb had to be above the "poverty line." However as the Republic went on more and more fell below it, thus the manpower of the army started to drop. Now, instead of restructuring the Roman economy that had, for some time, been shifting towards benefiting the small land holding aristocracy at the detriment to the masses, the Romans simply lowered the "poverty line"...

Genius of course. The poor weren't getting any more money, but plenty were now no longer classified as poverty stricken, and thus could be recruited into the army.

Capt_Fantastic

What I find ironic are people who complain about poor people being a drain on our economy because our taxes pay for everything they get, while wanting to keep the minimum wage down. And let's look at that word, "minimum"...sure, living in a house with no airconditioning and over due bills won't kill you, but you live that way because you live at the minimum standards of living.

xmarksthespot

Originally posted by Soleran
I can talk about tons of cases of small employers and the real impacts they have, can you? Much better, thank you.

Soleran

The little guy I spoke of here was the employee with the new "pay raise" not the small employer. Cost shifting will be first to overcome the new increase should it be required.

If you didn't think that the cost past on to the small employer in the daycare example is out of whack then there isn't alot that can be done for you, I'm guessing you don't own a business either.

Legislation for one, more specifically how it affects the cost of employee benefits(health etc) and availabilty from 2 life groups to 3000 life groups. So I feel fairly confident when I look at cost to benefit of wages and what it potentially will do for these groups.

What is your area of expertise/experience again?

Smasandian

Well, Soleran, let me tell you something.

In Ontario, Canada, the minium wage is $7.45 an hour. With conversion, that equals roughly around $6.65 in the US. We have alot of small business and we still have a higher min wage and they dont go down the drain.

So tell me, why would an increase of $1.65 really going to hurt small businesses when companies in Canada are doing quite well.
I think its a human right to allow people to eat and have shelter, so 5 bucks an hour wont do that considering inflation is raising (evidence in Canada where min wage has increase by .45 in past year or so)

And really, you dont have to look out for min wage to destroy small businesses, you have to look for Wal-Mart who lower the prices to the point of undermining the small mom and pop shop.

xmarksthespot

http://www.cbpp.org/9-1-05mw-f1.jpg

http://www.cbpp.org/9-1-05mw-f2.jpg

Pictures are prettiful.

Capt_Fantastic

Originally posted by Soleran
Legislation for one, more specifically how it affects the cost of employee benefits(health etc) and availabilty from 2 life groups to 3000 life groups. So I feel fairly confident when I look at cost to benefit of wages and what it potentially will do for these groups.

What is your area of expertise/experience again?

WOW! You mean, health care is an issue for those on minimum wage?!!!! I seem to recall having that conversation with you too....and you had an issue with socializing medicine like they have in Canada! So, which way do you want it? You gotta give some where. Make health care affordable for everyone or raise the minimum wage! WTF!

Do tell us your "expertise". What roll do you play in legislation? I've been the head of a department where I had to hire and fire people, set pay scales and get them subsidized benefits and health care. Does that make me an expert, no. But I do have some measure of logic.

FeceMan

****. IT IS SPELLJAMMER. RUN FOR THE HILLS, LADDIES!

Soleran

Originally posted by Smasandian
And really, you dont have to look out for min wage to destroy small businesses, you have to look for Wal-Mart who lower the prices to the point of undermining the small mom and pop shop.

Thank you for telling me that! MY point isn't that I am raging against increasing minimum wage, I said this on the first page of this discussion.

I am against raising minimum wage because it's an easy target for the layman as the lowest common denominator. How about we give small business owners a tax break for whatever they contribute to employee health benefits (realizing they have to contribute at least 50%.) Now that looks like it does something rather then increase minimum wage for popularity contests that oh by the way won't change where you are at in the income bracket anyway.

Not to mention if you're living on minimum wage thats the point, you're living on the minimum wage, time to make some changes to get away from that income.

Capt_Fantastic

Originally posted by Soleran
How about we give small business owners a tax break for whatever they contribute to employee health benefits (realizing they have to contribute at least 50%.)

Now, that's a good idea.

But, the health care system would still better serve all of us if it were socialized.

Soleran

they do get some tax break still however my point is to reward the small business guy for taking care of the employee without hitting up for double the penalty with a miniscule pay increase that isn't going to have an effective "change" on the recipient.

If they are minimum wage earners they more then likely also qualify for state income assistance or federal.

FeceMan

I like the health care system the way it is.

Lord Urizen

Originally posted by FeceMan
I like the health care system the way it is.

So do I ! big grin

I love that you can't get life-necessary surgery unless you have enough Insurance or Cash to pay for it.

I love how the Emergency Room left me waiting for 2 hours with a Dislocated Shoulder, until my mother told them she was a Nurse, and they finally sent me to get my shoulder back in place....

Those were the best two hours of my life...

Imperial_Samura

Originally posted by FeceMan
I like the health care system the way it is.

I'd like your healthcare if it was more like Australia's. There is something about making healthcare available to all regardless of money that just seems... right somehow.

Lord Urizen

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
I'd like your healthcare if it was more like Australia's. There is something about making healthcare available to all regardless of money that just seems... right somehow.

laughing

badabing

The Government can't run the Public Schools or Mail let alone anything as complex as Health Care. A Socialized Health Care System would not be the best solution. The US Government already has a safety net for those who need Health Care but can't afford it. The less Government oversight and intrusion into private sectors the better. Bill Clinton started the Welfare Reform 10-12 years ago. His idea was to reduce welfare dependence and have people trained with job skills. To the liberals dismay, the Reform is a huge success with less single parents and families living below the poverty line.

Smasandian

Originally posted by Soleran
Thank you for telling me that! MY point isn't that I am raging against increasing minimum wage, I said this on the first page of this discussion.

I am against raising minimum wage because it's an easy target for the layman as the lowest common denominator. How about we give small business owners a tax break for whatever they contribute to employee health benefits (realizing they have to contribute at least 50%.) Now that looks like it does something rather then increase minimum wage for popularity contests that oh by the way won't change where you are at in the income bracket anyway.

Not to mention if you're living on minimum wage thats the point, you're living on the minimum wage, time to make some changes to get away from that income.

I just told you that raising the min wage wont affect that. People on min wage in the States are living beneath the poverty line.

They can increase the min wage to 6.50 without affecting anything.

Smasandian

Originally posted by badabing
The Government can't run the Public Schools or Mail let alone anything as complex as Health Care. A Socialized Health Care System would not be the best solution. The US Government already has a safety net for those who need Health Care but can't afford it. The less Government oversight and intrusion into private sectors the better. Bill Clinton started the Welfare Reform 10-12 years ago. His idea was to reduce welfare dependence and have people trained with job skills. To the liberals dismay, the Reform is a huge success with less single parents and families living below the poverty line.

Thats absolute bullshit.

Govt cant run healthcare.

HMMMMMM Ever heard of Canada?

Imperial_Samura

Originally posted by Smasandian
Thats absolute bullshit.

Govt cant run healthcare.

HMMMMMM Ever heard of Canada?

Or Australia. Or any number of other nations.

xmarksthespot

Originally posted by badabing
The Government can't run the Public Schools or Mail let alone anything as complex as Health Care. Your government maybe. Government as a concept, not so much.

xmarksthespot

Absolute population is a poor comparative measure.

Per capita GDP spent on health in the USA is much higher than that of both Canada and Australia, as is private health expenditure.

Yet the latter two countries arguably have better and more accessible healthcare systems. The U.S. is below par in the OECD in number of doctors, nurses and hospital beds per capita. It's not that less money is being spent it's just being spent less well.

Strangelove

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
I don't think liberals are necessarily crazed idiots, though some are...

I do think that you generally favor raising taxes, penalizing private enterprise, reducing U.S. military strength, redistributing private wealth, subsidizing the continued existence of a government dependent strata of society, weakening prosecutorial power against violent criminals, promulgating laws from the judicial bench, and undermining traditional social norms of self-restraint and personal responsibility.

Therefore, I oppose you. Raising taxes for the rich. The last time we did it, there was a balanced budget. Now that there's a tax cut for the rich, we have a gigantic deficit.

Penalizing private enterprise that oversteps the bounds of private enterprise. Like Enron.

Reducing military strength because the only real fights the US has gotten into lately, Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, etc., have been fights that we picked ourselves without any reason or purpose for entering into a conflict.

and I don't have devolped opinions on the other issues.

badabing

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Absolute population is a poor comparative measure.

Per capita GDP spent on health in the USA is much higher than that of both Canada and Australia, as is private health expenditure.

Yet the latter two countries arguably have better and more accessible healthcare systems. The U.S. is below par in the OECD in number of doctors, nurses and hospital beds per capita. It's not that less money is being spent it's just being spent less well.
No, population is a great comparative measure. The US has 10 times the population of Canada and 15 times that of Australia. It's a HUGE logistical difference. If the Canadian Medicare is so efficient, then why is there so much waiting and misery? The US doesn't have that problem. Maybe it's the Free Market System is just that much more efficient. It costs the USA 5.2% more per household for healthcare than Canada but the average US home makes 8% more than the average Canadian home. Do the math. I'll pay for the superior health care. Canada has 2.1 per 1,000 and the USA has 2.7 per 1,000. I'm ready for some proof.

Canada lagging in doctors per capita.
OTTAWA -- Canada has one of the lowest ratios of doctors to population in the Western world, according to new figures from an international body.

In 2001, Canada had 2.1 practising physicians for every 1,000 residents, less than half as many as Greece which came in at the top of the scale at 4.4, says a report from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

The list of countries that out-doctor Canada includes the Slovak Republic (3.6), Hungary and Switzerland (both at 3.5) and the Czech Republic (3.4).

France, Germany and The Netherlands all had 3.3 doctors per 100,000, roughly a third more than Canada, according to figures released Thursday.

Despite a significant increase in health spending since the 1990s, Canada's physician workforce remains far below the OECD average of 2.9.

Researchers have been warning for at least a decade that Canada is facing a shortage of doctors, said Sunil Patel, president of the Canadian Medical Association.

"Canadians face a very serious risk of dwindling health human resources," he said.

"There's been no leadership shown by any level of government and especially the federal government."

Among other things, he has called for the fast-tracking of accreditation for foreign medical graduates.

The OECD average for doctors was 2.9 for each 100,000 of population, and the only countries with a lower number than Canada in 2001 were Mexico (1.5), Korea (1.4) and Turkey (1.3).

The study does not provide 2001 figures for the United States or the United Kingdom but in 1999 the U.S. figure was 2.7 for each 100,000 and the U.K. figure was 2.0.

The scarcity of Canadian doctors is in part the result of deliberate government policy. During the 1990s, provincial governments cut enrolment in medical and nursing schools as a strategy to cut medical costs.

In recent years, the federal government has increased health spending and enrolment, but working conditions remain a major complaint.

Patel said there were 11 doctors in Gimli, Man., when he started practising there in 1973, but now there are only five, even though the population has grown.

He said Canada is losing an average of 250 doctors each year, mainly to the United States. Many of them are leaving because they lack the support and facilities, he said.

"The working conditions are abominable.

"Think of it - three million Canadians do not have access to a family doctor. That is unacceptable in a developed country. We need more hands on deck."

The study found that Canada has more nurses per capita than the OECD average but the ratio has been dropping while in most other countries it has been

FeceMan

Yeah, being in the ER sucks. Yeah, it sucks if you can't pay for your surgery. Or your medicine. But, you know what? Life sucks. It's full of stuff that sucks.

Smasandian

So US homes make more than Canada homes. So couldnt those home's afford public health care?

Population doesnt mean shit. 32 million canadians need health care, well, funny thing, thats 32 million canadians who pay taxes for health care.

American has 296 million americans that could have health care, well, funny thing, it works out to be the same because hey, all those people will pay taxes for it.
It's all equal.

I think your forgetting that alot people cant afford health care, so what happens to them? Are they ****ed because they're not as lucky as you?

I will laugh at the time when you lose your job, or your parents unfortunally lose thier jobs, and when you get injured and need surgery you cant afford it. I think sometimes people need to get thier head out of thier ass and think of others.

Oh, also, the majority of people who complain about Canadian health care are rich, and usually conservative from the West.

Docters, especially family docters (where thier is a problem) are leaving, not because of the working conditions (the article makes it sound that the docters have it so tough in Canada, you know dirty water and all), but because the States pay them alot better. It's just greed.

Smasandian

Originally posted by FeceMan
Yeah, being in the ER sucks. Yeah, it sucks if you can't pay for your surgery. Or your medicine. But, you know what? Life sucks. It's full of stuff that sucks.

Medicine is one thing, life saving surgery is another. Im being a tad bit overdramatic, but its appalling for an docter to save a guy's life, and say hey, lucky your alive, here's a bill for $200,000.

Privatization only the helps the rich, or people lucky enough to have medicare. I guess I would be ****ed if I lived in the States.

Me_GuSta_ChoCha

Notin wrong with being liberal there just sumten wrong wit bush

PVS

Originally posted by Soleran
Since this is so much nonsence we'll just walk right around this hunk of shit

your mentallity of avoiding any turbulance in the economy whatsoever at the cost of ignoring the human condition at home warrants the same smilie. not to mention that your train of thought naturally leads to what i posted, and at its extreme ends: slavery. the sky is not falling and you are wrong to act like it is. the economy will have to adjust, some people will get laid off, but you want me to believe the next great depression is coming because businesses will be forced to give more livable wages for services rendered.

Originally posted by Soleran
Yup I agree that somethings will change and markets will fold that cannot handle the economic burden. Not everyone deserves to make more then minimum wage either so thats not my concern. My concern is with the undue burden placed on the SMALL EMPLOYER we'll say under 20 fully employed compared to the benefit of 1.50$ more an hour.

That one daycare I mentioned alone with fica tax and the increase would have its cost go up 27,000 dollars a year. Do that to 10 business's and now its 270,000 a year etc etc. Raising minimum wage is a weak link to "fixing" the economy.

nobody claimed that it would 'fix' the economy. its about helping the condition of minimum wage earners: the individuals, by giveing them LIVABLE wages. why is that some abstract concept? ...and will you be equally weary the next time minimum wage is raised to something even slightly MORE livable

lord xyz

Originally posted by dani_california
I don't understand why people think of Liberals as crazed idiots looking to raise taxes. Believe it or not Liberalism is a legitimate way of thinking. Tell me what you think. Any country in particular?

Capt_Fantastic

Despite all the various points of view, I think we can all agree that the biggest hurdle in decent healthcare in the US are the pharmaceutical companies. Just sit down and watch 15 minutes of television and I'm sure you'll come across a disease you have all the symptoms of, all of which can be treated by some largely untested drug.

PVS

Bardock42

Health Care System is a shit subject...just wanted to say that.

Soleran

Originally posted by PVS
your mentallity of avoiding any turbulance in the economy whatsoever at the cost of ignoring the human condition at home warrants the same smilie. not to mention that your train of thought naturally leads to what i posted, and at its extreme ends: slavery. the sky is not falling and you are wrong to act like it is. the economy will have to adjust, some people will get laid off, but you want me to believe the next great depression is coming because businesses will be forced to give more livable wages for services rendered.

No its your extremist responses that I look to avoid because they are what if's. However based on an example I used to illustrate minimum wage I at least have an idea of what it can possible do and cost and examine the benefit.

Raising minimum wage isn't going to fix the income problem of the low earner and it has the possiblity of hurting small employers. Thats all, as I said also in a later post I think bypassing on minimum wage increases and instead incenting small business owners to do something would generate a faster and greater response. As it stands raise minimum wage we aren't going to see people taking home more money or benefits however we see a cost shift and a decrease in work hours benefits etc etc.....................

maybe, especially if I don't think its worth while.

I am not a fan of pharma companies either.

I agree

PVS

Originally posted by Soleran
No its your extremist responses...
im sorry, but i cant get past this to address anything else
i suggest lack of panic for one of many simple adjustments in wages, all of which have not damaged the economy, and thats extremist. you declare that the economy will be so damaged by this, small business will crumble, women and babies will starve in the streets etc....i suppose thats a moderate view?

Soleran

Originally posted by PVS
im sorry, but i cant get past this to address anything else
i suggest lack of panic for one of many simple adjustments in wages, all of which have not damaged the economy, and thats extremist. you declare that the economy will be so damaged by this, small business will crumble, women and babies will starve in the streets etc....i suppose thats a moderate view?

I didn't say the economy as a whole, I said as it would affect small employers. Simply raising someone's pay isn't nec going to help minimum wage earners take home more money when the govt decrees increase's in minimum wages.

Its simply going to make small employers and such cost shift the expense or reduce hours etc. Raising minimum wage as I said before isn't a viable fix for low income who would typically also qualify for state and federal income help. Its looking at the lowest common denominator and getting people excited about nothing essentially, in my opinion.

badabing

Originally posted by Bardock42
Health Care System is a shit subject...just wanted to say that.
You're right. Why the hell am I posting here? eek!

badabing

Capt_Fantastic

Originally posted by Soleran
I didn't say the economy as a whole, I said as it would affect small employers. Simply raising someone's pay isn't nec going to help minimum wage earners take home more money when the govt decrees increase's in minimum wages.

Its simply going to make small employers and such cost shift the expense or reduce hours etc. Raising minimum wage as I said before isn't a viable fix for low income who would typically also qualify for state and federal income help. Its looking at the lowest common denominator and getting people excited about nothing essentially, in my opinion.

Well, then keep the minimum wage where it is and reverse the effects of inflation. Or is that more punishing big buisness simply for being big?

You see what I'm saying? All of your perspectives might seem logical to you, but they simply give no quater and expect everyone else to do so. Keep healthcare privatized, stagnate the minimum wage, allow big buisness to drive up the price of living. But, as you said before, cut taxes. That seems to be the conservative idea of appeasing teh masses. Not that poor people pay a ton of taxes from which to get relief.

Soleran

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Well, then keep the minimum wage where it is and reverse the effects of inflation. Or is that more punishing big buisness simply for being big?

Crack down on big business, I was only talking about the possible effects on small business. The dynamics change considerably in larger employers. Once again though raise the cost of doing business and benefits change, vacation etc for any size employer group, will change to offset the cost.

My perspectives are also based on the region of the USA where I work. I lived in Northern Virginia for a long time and I thought differently when I lived there because the economics of the region were different from where I am located now.

I said cut tax's for the small employer (under 20.) I am not overly concerned with big business which is where most of your discussion is aimed at.

Capt_Fantastic

Originally posted by Soleran
Crack down on big business, I was only talking about the possible effects on small business. The dynamics change considerably in larger employers. Once again though raise the cost of doing business and benefits change, vacation etc for any size employer group, will change to offset the cost.

My perspectives are also based on the region of the USA where I work. I lived in Northern Virginia for a long time and I thought differently when I lived there because the economics of the region were different from where I am located now.

I said cut tax's for the small employer (under 20.) I am not overly concerned with big business which is where most of your discussion is aimed at.

So you think that the exceptions made for small buisness won't be challenged by big buisness? And who's going to win in such a case?

FeceMan

Originally posted by PVS
so....forsake reform on the grounds that life sucks?
Forsake reform on the grounds that it isn't needed. And that life sucks.

Dr. Zaius

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Despite all the various points of view, I think we can all agree that the biggest hurdle in decent healthcare in the US are the pharmaceutical companies. Just sit down and watch 15 minutes of television and I'm sure you'll come across a disease you have all the symptoms of, all of which can be treated by some largely untested drug.

I partly agree with you on this one. I think there is a cottage victimization industry in this country that cuts across several industries. The marketing idea behind some of these pharmaceutical companies is to make the American public discover the heretofore unrealized fact that they are in desperate need of their drugs...for any variety of ailments. The culture at large promotes this mindset as well, and seems to promote the idea that Americans are sick, slovenly people who are a stone's throw away from utter physical ruin and/or death. Unfortunately, this is a sort of a self-fulfilling prophesy as more and more Americans take less responsibility for their personal health, stop trying to take care of themselves through proper diet and exercise, and then try to use pills as a stopgap to stave off that next heart attack and/or bout of erectile dysfunction. I, for one, would like to see a shift in the American mindset concerning personal health away from the appalling willingness to self-brand oneself a victim.

Actually, I would award the number one culprit in high medical costs in this country to the insurance companies--and those who don't know how to use their coverage properly and/or are not afraid to defraud the American consumer. As a general rule of human nature, people will abuse what they perceive as "free." Low deductible coverages encourage people to go to the doctor regularly for non-emergency treatments. Insurance companies don't mind this, because they know they can ultimately recoup expenses from the premium holder in the form of higher rates. The hospitals love this mentality too, since they figure they can "sock it" to the insurance companies and charge exorbitant prices, since the actual patient will never see the real bill. The problem with this system, and will all types of blanket, low deductible plans, is that it discourages discretion and accountability in the selection and payment of services.

High premium insurance is affordable to almost anybody. Its lone "drawback" is that it actually forces you to only go to get treatment or surgery if its a dire emergency. Oh no! Isn't that what insurance should be for anyway? Catastrophic events? Unless you're elderly, have special conditions, or have young children, I would venture to say that a high-decutable plan would fit everybody's realistic needs. Minor sickness can be addressed by paying out of pocket. It's cheaper than paying the higher price for a low deductible plan!

People need to be honest with themselves. Nothing is free. Nationalized care would be mucho expensive and wouldn't necessarily provide better service--in all likelihood, overall service would decline. As with most things, I believe the best and most efficient way to create effective service and care for people is to give the market free reign. Big insurance and the near universal belief in low-deductible coverages has allowed a pricing system to grow in place that is not sensitive to real world conditions. Introduce more personal accountability on the patient side, and watch prices come down! Health care providers would be forced to accommodate a more budget-minded consumer who, in the absence of low prices, would fail to avail themselves of the service.

Dr. Zaius

Originally posted by PVS
so, lets drop the wage to $2.00 an hour and EVERYONE will be employed (and starve)

you do realise that not everyone can just 'choose' to make more than minimum wage? im sorry, but this whole economic doomsday scenario of raising minimum wage has been argued with every single raise in minimum wage.

PVS, you're arguing from the assumption that prices are arbitrarily set from on high and that they do not reflect real supply/demand conditions.

Unskilled labor is just like any other commodity. From the employer's perspective, nothing differentiates one unskilled laborer from the next. If one quits, the employer can merely go and find another one. In short, unskilled labor is cheap because anyone can do it. The price should be allowed to reflect this fact. Why? Because artificially raising the price of an otherwise cheap commodity causes one of two things to happen--either the employer hires less unskilled help, or he goes to the black market to secure a cheaper commodity. In either scenario, the legal, unskilled laborer is left with less options.

The lesson to the unskilled laborer should be to acquire a skill to become more valuable to the market, not seek increased subsidization for remaining unskilled.

This observation brings up another point. The U.S. needs to create a better trade school infrastructure for itself, one that will allow high school graduates to learn valuable skills without having to matriculate at a university.

Capt_Fantastic

I absolutely agree. I should have included the insurance idustry. That much has been implied in my condemnation of the current healthcare system in this country, which includes the insurace industry.

Lord Urizen

How pessemistic....I'll just stick with Liberalism yes

FeceMan

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Is that the Conservative justification ? roll eyes (sarcastic)

How pessemistic....I'll just stick with Liberalism yes

No, the conservative justification is that the system doesn't need to change. Just because some people go without doesn't mean that the system is broken.

Lord Urizen

Originally posted by FeceMan
No, the conservative justification is that the system doesn't need to change. Just because some people go without doesn't mean that the system is broken.

I thought Jesus said to watch over every sheep, not just a select few....

Oh wait...Conseratives only pay attention to the discriminatory scriptures, they ignore the "unity" part of Jesus' teachings...my bad, I forgot. Sorry.....

The system is very much broken as long as someone suffers.....It is not impossible to provide everyone with proper health care. The United States treasury holds more than enough to supply healthcare and food for EVERY fkn citizen, and even some to spare for the illegals who sneak thier asses in here.....

60% of the United States wealth is possessed by the top 20%......the other 40 percent goes to the rest of us "Americans" who scramble and fight for the share......instead of just supplying each citizen with a fair share of security, a large # of ppl have to suffer and die, so the others can live comfortably......wow.....Conservatism is so positive ! eek!

Soleran

Whats this "fair" share you speak of?

Dr. Zaius

Originally posted by Soleran
Whats this "fair" share you speak of?

Enough to pay for all those "Spawn" back issues he needs to finish his collection.

badabing

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
Enough to pay for all those "Spawn" back issues he needs to finish his collection.
eek!

Capt_Fantastic

Originally posted by FeceMan
No, the conservative justification is that the system doesn't need to change. Just because some people go without doesn't mean that the system is broken.

The system is broken when people don't need to go without. We aren't talking about a gas guzzling SUV or a $50,000 dollar wedding. We're talking about health care.

Soleran

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
Enough to pay for all those "Spawn" back issues he needs to finish his collection.

I chuckled when I read that, I did! laughing

The system is broken when people don't need to go without. We aren't talking about a gas guzzling SUV or a $50,000 dollar wedding. We're talking about health care.

H S A's consumer driven health plans! No doctor copay or perscription drug card relatively low deductible and very low premium smile

Dr. Zaius

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I thought Jesus said to watch over every sheep, not just a select few....

This scripture passage doesn't necessarily imply the implementation of a welfare state or nationalized health care. Sorry.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
The system is very much broken as long as someone suffers.....It is not impossible to provide everyone with proper health care. The United States treasury holds more than enough to supply healthcare and food for EVERY fkn citizen, and even some to spare for the illegals who sneak thier asses in here.....

Wow. "As long as someone suffers..."That's a pretty demanding standard. I guess every system is doomed to failure, then.

The treasury might have enough to provide nationalized care, but at what cost? A big one. You might think of this as being a free government entitlement, but it ain't. We'll all pay for it...out the ass. And there's no guarantee the overall service won't be worse. The current system can certainly be worked on but having the government take it over, doesn't seem promising to me.

Provide food? Lord Urizen, what other service would you like the government to perform for you? Wipe your ass? Refill your Pez dispenser? Your post doesn't exactly express confidence in normal, everyday people's ability to take care of themselves. One might even say it borders on condescension...

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
60% of the United States wealth is possessed by the top 20%......the other 40 percent goes to the rest of us "Americans" who scramble and fight for the share......instead of just supplying each citizen with a fair share of security, a large # of ppl have to suffer and die, so the others can live comfortably......wow.....Conservatism is so positive ! eek!

"Fair share?" What fair share would you be referring to?...the part you didn't earn in the marketplace, or the part you didn't risk any of your own capital to build into a successful enterprise?

PVS

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius

The lesson to the unskilled laborer should be to acquire a skill to become more valuable to the market, not seek increased subsidization for remaining unskilled.

This observation brings up another point. The U.S. needs to create a better trade school infrastructure for itself, one that will allow high school graduates to learn valuable skills without having to matriculate at a university.

eletist horseshit. so a member of society with no college education or trade skill is useless? only thing is someone still has to mop up shit. full time labor of any nature deserves livable wages. you imply punishment and a sort of justice for those who remain in unskilled labor, when those labors are needed. i fine that sort of disgusting.

how can people insist that others dont deserve to make a living, even though they work full time and contribute to society and our economy. really, this mentallity annoys the shit out of me.

Dr. Zaius

Originally posted by PVS
eletist horseshit. so a member of society with no college education or trade skill is useless? only thing is someone still has to mop up shit. full time labor of any nature deserves livable wages. you imply punishment and a sort of justice for those who remain in unskilled labor, when those labors are needed. i fine that sort of disgusting.

how can people insist that others dont deserve to make a living, even though they work full time and contribute to society and our economy. really, this mentallity annoys the shit out of me.

I didn't say that. I have lots of respect for people who work hard with their hands and don't necessarily have a college degree. I've worked along side some of these people, doing sweat labor and never thought myself superior in any way. In fact, I would prefer more people to acquire honest trade skills than become just another useless university matriculated f..k, like me.

But the fact remains, even people who can't or don't want to go to college need to acquire skills, whether that's as a plumber, carpenter, roofer, general contractor, etc...These jobs pay good money.

I just don't believe wages or prices can be determined by anything other than market forces, without the law of unintended cause and effect kicking in. Keeping any price or wage artificially high will cause employers in the market to adjust their behavior in other unfavorable ways.

And...believe or not, some unskilled labor is paid very highly, but it's usually tough, sweaty work. Me and my employer do some consulting work for a disaster recovery general contractor. He happens to be set up near New Orleans at the moment. It's amazing to go down there and walk around and talk to people like our client and discover just how many "desparate" people are unwilling to do any type of tough, honest labor...even at high wages.

You wanna talk disgusting. That's disgusting.

PVS

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
I didn't say that. I have lots of respect for people who work hard with their hands and don't necessarily have a college degree. I've worked along side some of these people, doing sweat labor and never thought myself superior in any way. In fact, I would prefer more people to acquire honest trade skills than become just another useless university matriculated f..k, like me.
that makes me feel warm and fuzzy. im glad you can get your hands dirty. whats the relevance though? and you stray from the point with "honest trade skills", which begs the question: whats with adding "honest" to that? no, i never suggested that YOU feel that you are superior to your mechanic. i said that you present an elitist attitude which suggests that anyone who is not skilled in a trade and does not pursue higher education deserves to not earn wages which are livable. notice i didnt even say 'comfortable'. i just said livable. two parents making minimum wage cannot support a child anywhere outside the projects, and yes unskilled labor is and always will be needed. how is this fair? im not saying "lets help them buy a mercedese", im saying "lets help them provide their children with the same basic resources and opportunities as should be universal." and please, dont bring up that they can apply for welfare, because thats a catch 22. the money has to come from somewhere and it may as well be earned as opposed to mailed via government check.

my ideal is simple: everyone who works full time, contributing to society and our economy, should be given the means to pull their own weight. nothing more. im not saying shower them with money. im saying give them the means to pull their weight.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius

But the fact remains, even people who can't or don't want to go to college need to acquire skills, whether that's as a plumber, carpenter, roofer, general contractor, etc...These jobs pay good money.

go to a restaurant.
someone has to wait tables. someone has to wash the dishes. someone has to mop the floor. none of these are skilled labor, yet they are needed. it is unfair to punish those who work full time by offering them sub-livable wages.
and YES, you do suggest that and continue to suggest that. and when your debate is stripped of all the fluff and feigned empathy, that is all that remains:
the mentallity that unskilled laborers dont deserve to earn a living. (not a fortune, just a living) that is, in essence, slavery.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
I just don't believe wages or prices can be determined by anything other than market forces, without the law of unintended cause and effect kicking in. Keeping any price or wage artificially high will cause employers in the market to adjust their behavior in other unfavorable ways.

have you ever stopped to consider that the minimum wage is artificially low?

as pointed out earlier:
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
http://www.cbpp.org/9-1-05mw-f1.jpg

http://www.cbpp.org/9-1-05mw-f2.jpg

Pictures are prettiful.
and please, dont cry "the sky is falling". every minimum wage increase is met by that horse manure, and every time it is proven to be yet another desperate attempt for upper classes to tighten their asses and horde.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
And...believe or not, some unskilled labor is paid very highly, but it's usually tough, sweaty work. Me and my employer do some consulting work for a disaster recovery general contractor. He happens to be set up near New Orleans at the moment. It's amazing to go down there and walk around and talk to people like our client and discover just how many "desparate" people are unwilling to do any type of tough, honest labor...even at high wages.

You wanna talk disgusting. That's disgusting.

yeah, there are plenty of blue collar workers who are lazy, corporate slime who leach off of the market through criminal activity, doctors who refuse to take the time to properly diagnose their patients...its a sad world...lots of assholes out there...and no your point there is irrelevant, unless i'm supposed to believe that people you run into on the street are proof that poor people dont work? yeah, i know, im misunderstanding again. so correct me: what is the relevance of bringing them up?

Soleran

Whats "their weight" valued at then? How much is this livable income?

17k a year? 20k a year? 24k a year? 28k a year? 32k a year?

PVS

Originally posted by Soleran
Whats "their weight" valued at then? How much is this livable income?

17k a year? 20k a year? 24k a year? 28k a year? 32k a year?

18-20k imho. the current minimum allows for barely over 10k a year.

imagine working a 40 hour week and getting $200...excluding taxes, so realistically like $160 a week/8,500 a year.

Bardock42

Originally posted by PVS
18-20k imho. the current minimum allows for barely over 10k a year.

imagine working a 40 hour week and getting $200...excluding taxes, so realistically like $160 a week/8,500 a year.

You have to create something worth the 18-20 k and some people just can't..why should people pay more for the work than it is worth?

Soleran

Originally posted by PVS
18-20k imho. the current minimum allows for barely over 10k a year.

imagine working a 40 hour week and getting $200...excluding taxes, so realistically like $160 a week/8,500 a year.

I can tell you that I wouldn't be working only 40 hours a week to begin with if I made that little...........................I would also find a way to increase my income rather then whine complain and struggle with where I was at.

But hey, that's me and that's also what I feel others should do in that situation.

PVS

Originally posted by Bardock42
You have to create something worth the 18-20 k and some people just can't..why should people pay more for the work than it is worth?

"what its worth" is an intangible and downright imagined figure. 200 years ago, "what its worth" was a few loafs of bread and a barnhouse to sleep in. so then, they try to keep the minimum proportionate with the cost of living, bare minimum...at least that was the ideal. now people find it acceptable to drop them below the cost of living as a means of punishment for not being as skilled as them....or so it seems...or so i cant imagine any other reason why.

proof:

Originally posted by Soleran
I can tell you that I wouldn't be working only 40 hours a week to begin with if I made that little...........................I would also find a way to increase my income rather then whine complain and struggle with where I was at.

But hey, that's me and that's also what I feel others should do in that situation.

translation: those who perform needed yet unskilled labors should be denied the basic means for living.

Soleran

No your translator just sucks, it means that if you are working for minimum wages you might not be able to afford to work "regular" (read 40 hours) a week. You might not be able to live in a place by yourself or eat name brand foods and order out, people have choices to make on what they do and don't do. I'm not here to give warm fuzzies to people that choose "less" but want equal.

Bardock42

Originally posted by PVS
"what its worth" is an intangible and downright imagined figure. 200 years ago, "what its worth" was a few loafs of bread and a barnhouse to sleep in. so they try to keep the minimum proportionate with the cost of living, bare minimum...at least that was the ideal. now people find it acceptable to drop them below the cost of living as a means of punishment for not being as skilled as them....or so it seems...or so i cant imagine any other reason why.

proof:

translation: those who perform needed unskilled labors should be denied the basic means for living.

Not really, what it is worth is pretty easy to determine..what are you willing to pay for a certain action...that's what it is worth to you.

PVS

Originally posted by Soleran
No your translator just sucks, it means that if you are working for minimum wages you might not be able to afford to work "regular" (read 40 hours) a week. You might not be able to live in a place by yourself or eat name brand foods and order out, people have choices to make on what they do and don't do. I'm not here to give warm fuzzies to people that choose "less" but want equal.

my translator is dead on. you hold contempt for unskilled laborers. your every post STINKS of it. avoiding my points will not alter that. you feel that a houshold of 2 married unskilled laborers should not have the means to raise a family. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.....but not for them....they CHOSE to make less than me so let them eat cake.

Capt_Fantastic

well, in all fairness, the 40 hour work week started in ancient Egypt. Not that this fact is at all relevant

PVS

Originally posted by Bardock42
Not really, what it is worth is pretty easy to determine..what are you willing to pay for a certain action...that's what it is worth to you.

so we should just eliminate minimum wage and allow employers to set their own price? messed

where are you going with this?

Bardock42

Originally posted by PVS
so we should just eliminate minimum wage and allow employers to set their own price? messed

where are you going with this?

Yes, basically. That's were I'm going with this.

xmarksthespot

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth484/minpov.jpg

The poverty level is a calculated absolute value determined by the 3 x the cost of an adequate diet. So basically food for 3 people. Sucks to be a mother of 3.

Capt_Fantastic

Originally posted by Bardock42
Not really, what it is worth is pretty easy to determine..what are you willing to pay for a certain action...that's what it is worth to you.

So sitting in boring meetings and sipping expensive coffee all day while sitting in a plush office on the 80th floor of some NY skyscrapper is proportionate to moping floors in a dive cafe? One earns over a 100k a year and the other has to work 80 hours a week just keep his home?

Not that all people who sit in the office haven't gotten there through hard work, but what is the guy moping the floor doing? I think we all deserve to at least be able to keep our heads above water. And that's what so many conservatives take issue with: the word "deserve".

Soleran

Originally posted by PVS
my translator is dead on. you hold contempt for unskilled laborers.your every post STINKS of it.

No, no I don't. My best friend mows lawns for a living and I wouldn't change that for him. He went from making 50k a year and chose to mow lawns for less money and he doesn't complain or whine or say give me more money but he does work alot of hours. Once again your translation is ass PVS and thats probably what your smelling.

Most of your points were directed at Dr Zais posts not mine I just picked what I wanted to respond to. Once again since you just go for attack mode I'm assuming here that you mean a 40 hour work week, is that what you're saying here? That two people have the right to earn minimum wage and work 40 hours to have a specific standard you feel is fair for them?

Bardock42

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
So sitting in boring meetings and sipping expensive coffee all day while sitting in a plush office on the 80th floor of some NY skyscrapper is proportionate to moping floors in a dive cafe? One earns over a 100k a year and the other has to work 80 hours a week just keep his home?

Not that all people who sit in the office haven't gotten there through hard work, but what is the guy moping the floor doing? I think we all deserve to at least be able to keep our heads above water. And that's what so many conservatives take issue with: the word "deserve".

I also think that every person deserves the chance to live and of course improve their situation, what they do not deserve though is getting money from other citizens that they are not bringing back in through their work...that is just unreasonable and unfair.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth484/minpov.jpg

The poverty level is a calculated absolute value determined by the 3 x the cost of an adequate diet. So basically food for 3 people. Sucks to be a mother of 3.

That's not how it is calculated in the EU I believe. I think everyone that is below 70% of the average income in Germany is considered poor...and lets face it, that's a shit system.

xmarksthespot

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's not how it is calculated in the EU I believe. I think everyone that is below 70% of the average income in Germany is considered poor...and lets face it, that's a shit system. I'm not one to defend American systems... so meh.

PVS

Originally posted by Soleran
No, no I don't. My best friend mows lawns for a living and I wouldn't change that for him. He went from making 50k a year and chose to mow lawns for less money and he doesn't complain or whine or say give me more money but he does work alot of hours. Once again your translation is ass PVS and thats probably what your smelling.

MY GOD!!!! thanks for that anecdotal evidence about your friend who chose to mow lawns and thats all we know about him. once i find out the relevancy of it im sure ill feel totally wrong and take it all back.

Originally posted by Soleran
is that what you're saying here? That two people have the right to earn minimum wage and work 40 hours to have a specific standard you feel is fair for them?

rephrase: two people have the right to earn a specific standard of living in exchange for working a full time week. this standard of living should enable them to raise a family. of coarse that is subjective, so lets figure a 2-child household.
i havent even addressed single parents, but lets just assume we live in a perfect world where there is no divorce and take it from there: in this perfect world minimum wage for 2 fulltime workers is still sub-standard. how is this fair? because your rich pampered friend can just casually decide that all that money is just too stressful to make, so he'll just cut lawns and deliver papers?

Bardock42

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I'm not one to defend American systems... so meh.

I meant the EU system, I am not sure how the other Systems work, where did you get the system from you referred to?

Rapscallion

Bardock42

Originally posted by Rapscallion
the problem is many people don't have the option of getting paid 50k a year and have to work at the minimum wage. it's not like they choose this for themselves.

If they don't have the option of making 50k they are probably just not able to produce anything worth 50k.

xmarksthespot

Originally posted by Bardock42
I meant the EU system, I am not sure how the other Systems work, where did you get the system from you referred to? Wikipedia... where else?

More U.S. poverty thresholds.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/threshld/thresh04.html

Soleran

Originally posted by PVS
MY GOD!!!! thanks for that anecdotal evidence about your friend who chose to mow lawns and thats all we know about him. once i find out the relevancy of it im sure ill feel totally wrong and take it all back.

No problem, I figured you'd get fired up about that, it's a freebie.

Lets say that 2 minimum wage earners decide they want a family, is it everyone's descision to up their wages based on the two individual lifestyles? Sure and lets also throw in fun time pay for the kids as well since you feel we should subsidize people's life choices!

How about this 5.15*40=206
Overtime 7.73*40=309
total now equals 515 a week which is 24,720 which is above even the line you chose for a managable living income. Now double that for two folks working 80 hours a week.

PVS

Originally posted by Bardock42
If they don't have the option of making 50k they are probably just not able to produce anything worth 50k.

thats fine. but the point is that anecdotal evidence about some anonymous dude who decides that all this work is just too much is worthless. for all we know he could be single and living with his parents. its useless to the discussion.

Kryzula

The only liberals that I have a dislike for are the ones who blame others for their problems instead of taking responsibility for their own actions. The overzealous ones are irritating, too. Of course both sides have these types of people, but I seem to know more liberals who are like this.

When I want to have a rational conversation I usually end up talking to someone who is conservative, don't know why that is.

I still do not know for sure which side of the fence I am on. Some of my views are conservative (criminal justice). Some of my views are liberal (poverty).

~ Kryzula

Capt_Fantastic

Originally posted by Bardock42
I also think that every person deserves the chance to live and of course improve their situation, what they do not deserve though is getting money from other citizens that they are not bringing back in through their work...that is just unreasonable and unfair.

I don't disagree. There's no excuse for some woman who shits out a new kid every nine months to get an up in their government aid and then all ten of her kids still go without. The only issue I have is that the conservative agenda seems to place those who are in need and deserve help in the same category as the people who abuse the system for cigarette money and heroine, trading their food stamps for $.50 on the dollar for cigarette and liquor money. Look at the usual suspects in this thread that protest against raising the minimum wage. They're typically the same people who argue that everyone in the ghetto should be cut off, that everyone in the ghetto is a crack smoking leech on the governments ***. They operate under this impression that hard work and determination will get you everything you want in this country.

Capt_Fantastic

? Why?

PVS

Originally posted by Soleran

How about this 5.15*40=206
Overtime 7.73*40=309
total now equals 515 a week which is 24,720 which is above even the line you chose for a managable living income.

figures dont lie

...but liars figure.

to assume payed overtime just to skew your figures is just asinine.

now its time for roughly estimated reality:

5.05*40hours*52weeks=aprox 10,000
take out taxes and bring that down to....you know what? ill be obnoxiosly optimistic like you and say 8500. *2 for double income=17,000 take home

xmarksthespot

Originally posted by Soleran
No problem, I figured you'd get fired up about that, it's a freebie.

Lets say that 2 minimum wage earners decide they want a family, is it everyone's descision to up their wages based on the two individual lifestyles? Sure and lets also throw in fun time pay for the kids as well since you feel we should subsidize people's life choices!

How about this 5.15*40=206
Overtime 7.73*40=309
total now equals 515 a week which is 24,720 which is above even the line you chose for a managable living income. Now double that for two folks working 80 hours a week. Why are you assuming they're going to get paid overtime on minimum wage? huh

Capt_Fantastic

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Why are you assuming they're going to get paid overtime on minimum wage? huh

exactly

Rapscallion

Originally posted by Bardock42
If they don't have the option of making 50k they are probably just not able to produce anything worth 50k.

they probably could produce something worth 50k if they had the option, but they don't. besides, most people don't produce anything worth 50k jsut by themself even when they are paid that much. and how do you determine how much a product cost? or how much t contributes to those how use it.

Soleran

Originally posted by PVS
figures dont lie
...but liars figure.

to assume payed overtime just to skew your figures is just asinine.

now its time for roughly estimated reality:

5.05*40hours*52weeks=aprox 10,000
take out taxes and bring that down to....you know what? ill be obnoxiosly optimistic like you and say 8500. *2 for double income=17,000 take home

Even if I don't assume overtime so far your total assumption is that everyone for some reason deserves the right to a 40 hour work week with a level of pay that should give them a level of comfort you feel is fair (which you never said what level of comfort is fair.) That if someone wants to have kids or should they have kids then all of a sudden everyone around them should reconfigure what is "fair" since now they have another mouth to feed, etc. etc. etc. You have a great idea of what you feel is fair and right and good and an overzealous attitiude that belies your message.

As far as gov't subsidizing these types of situations I am all for it! Keep it in place just help the folks who need it also create a plan of action to change where they will be tomorrow. Everyone deserves a chance or two by you , me and the gov't. The folks that sit down and don't change don't deserve the help over and over again.

Whenever you took your job PVS and they offered you the pay did they sit down and give you your monthly ajusted gross income? No, they don't know your tax's and the folks that make that little money don't pay much and get most if not all of it back so your numbers are ass as well if you want to play detail man.

Lord Urizen

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
This scripture passage doesn't necessarily imply the implementation of a welfare state or nationalized health care. Sorry.

This scripture, like all scriptures, all virtually useless because Christians like you will only use the quotes that are convienent for themselves and ignore anything that contradicts thier own agenda.

If Jesus said that we all must be treated the same, then that also means we all must have equal share of necessities, and that no one person should have so much more than another....

But since that goes directly against the Conservative ideal, that idea of swept under the rug... roll eyes (sarcastic)

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
Wow. "As long as someone suffers..."That's a pretty demanding standard. I guess every system is doomed to failure, then.

Almost every system is inadequate is the point. In Switzerland and some parts of the Netherlands every citizen there has a livable situation...no one is poor. In Australia, everyone can get healthcare for free despite whatever money they make. In Cuba education and schooling is free.

Now...United States has more money than all of those nations combined...yet we still have a large number of impoverous and homeless citizens?

Something is fkn wrong....and for you to deny it makes you even more hypocritical and full of sh*t than I already imagined you to be.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
The treasury might have enough to provide nationalized care, but at what cost? A big one. You might think of this as being a free government entitlement, but it ain't. We'll all pay for it...out the ass. And there's no guarantee the overall service won't be worse. The current system can certainly be worked on but having the government take it over, doesn't seem promising to me.

One word.....

BULL SHIT.........

At what cost ? Their own money perhaps? Our own money perhaps ? 60% of this nations wealth is owned by the top 20% of citizens, most of whom developed this wealth through the inheritance that derived from slave labor.

What does that mean ? That means the other 40% of United States wealth is split among 80% of the rest of American Citizens.....talk about extemes......talk about the potential and cause for much conflict.....

Some families in this country inherit more money than they could possibly spend in thier own lifetimes.....

United States treasury holds enough money to last for ten generations even if we ALL stopped working today.....we are a fkn rich ass country, yet we have poverty !!! We can't even feed everyone or supply everyone in this nation with the basic necessities, even though countries of lesser wealth can !

That's pathetic thumb down

It will cost us nothing......

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
Provide food? Lord Urizen, what other service would you like the government to perform for you? Wipe your ass? Refill your Pez dispenser? Your post doesn't exactly express confidence in normal, everyday people's ability to take care of themselves. One might even say it borders on condescension...

How the f*ck can you equate supplying basic necessities like Food, with superficial desires such as "wiping your ass" ????

You truly are a twisted, insensitive, and unrealistic person !

"Condescension" ????? What the f**k?

I don't think the homeless and those who lack food in this country give a f*ck about this....I think they'd rather get decent and continuous supplies of FOOD, rather than pick nutrition out of the ****ing garbage cans !

United States has MORE FOOD than we know what to do with, yet food gets wasted every day, AND there are still enormous amounts of people who can't afford to even feed themselves.

What fkn country do you live in ? If you live in U.S.A. then you're either secluded in your little Catholic Fantasy World, or you're just fkn BLIND.....

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
"Fair share?" What fair share would you be referring to?...the part you didn't earn in the marketplace, or the part you didn't risk any of your own capital to build into a successful enterprise?

Don't fkn talk to me about earnings. The top Protestant Elite inheritted thier wealth through Inherittance from Profit of Slave Labor, they didn't fkn "earn" it you jackass. Those are the top 20% of people who own 60% of this nation's wealth. That's fkn absurd that the rest of us have to scrabble over what's left....

Hence, there is NO FAIR SHARE.......laborers don't even make livable wages in this country.....wtf is up with that ?

PVS

Originally posted by Soleran
Everyone deserves a chance or two by you , me and the gov't. The folks that sit down and don't change don't deserve the help over and over again.

again: unskilled laborers are NEEDED. its not a problem or an unfortunate condition which they should change. they are NECESSARY. wtf is your malfunction?

Lord Urizen

xmarksthespot

Originally posted by Soleran
Even if I don't assume overtime so far your total assumption is that everyone for some reason deserves the right to a 40 hour work week with a level of pay that should give them a level of comfort you feel is fair (which you never said what level of comfort is fair.) That if someone wants to have kids or should they have kids then all of a sudden everyone around them should reconfigure what is "fair" since now they have another mouth to feed, etc. etc. etc. You have a great idea of what you feel is fair and right and good and an overzealous attitiude that belies your message.A nation's children are its future.

PVS

....teach them well and let them lead the way

SEXUAL CHOCOLATE LADIES AND GENTLEMAN!!!!!!!!!!!

stick out tongue

smoker4

Originally posted by PVS
....teach them well and let them lead the way

SEXUAL CHOCOLATE LADIES AND GENTLEMAN!!!!!!!!!!!

stick out tongue

Lolz

Just let your soul glow

http://unfurnishedbrooklyn.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/stoney.jpg

Soleran

Originally posted by PVS
again: unskilled laborers are NEEDED. its not a problem or an unfortunate condition which they should change. they are NECESSARY. wtf is your malfunction?

I keep asking myself what's your problem. You came up with a number a value of 17k-20k now I'm assuming thats in net take home pay since you don't like to figure out gross incomes(seeing as thats how EVERY employer figures pay, you're onto something here, huh.)

So you quantified the minimum pay.....................so I'm also assuming if this pay is met then govt subsidizing stops altogether.

What is the quality of life that this income now gives them, obviously you have some idea if you can come up with a figure. Is it Cable TV, Car, 3 bedroom home, etc etc what makes up the value for your dollar amount?

PVS

Originally posted by Soleran
I keep asking myself what's your problem. You came up with a number a value of 17k-20k now I'm assuming thats in net take home pay since you don't like to figure out gross incomes(seeing as thats how EVERY employer figures pay, you're onto something here, huh.)

So you quantified the minimum pay.....................so I'm also assuming if this pay is met then govt subsidizing stops altogether.

WTF??? you asked me for my opinion on a fair figure, so i gave you one....now you want to manipulate the debate, switch topics when you're cornered, and go on to suggest that this arbitrary figure is the basis of my argument. :edit: not worth it

Originally posted by Soleran
What is the quality of life that this income now gives them, obviously you have some idea if you can come up with a figure. Is it Cable TV, Car, 3 bedroom home, etc etc what makes up the value for your dollar amount?

housing, food, clothing, medical insurance, transportation, basic essentials.
people who have to worry about how to meet these demands, unlike your lawn mowing friend, often times have to settle for minimum wage. you want me to break it all down with the hope that we can run off on a tangent and divert attention from the fact that you have an eletist mentality and feel that unskilled laborers should be penalized for being who they are, and should want to change as if they are burdens on our economy when in fact they are necessary to it.

Bardock42

Originally posted by PVS
thats fine. but the point is that anecdotal evidence about some anonymous dude who decides that all this work is just too much is worthless. for all we know he could be single and living with his parents. its useless to the discussion.
Yes...and?

Soleran

Originally posted by PVS
WTF??? you asked me for my opinion on a fair figure, so i gave you one....now you want to manipulate the debate, switch topics when you're cornered, and go on to suggest that this arbitrary figure is the basis of my argument. :edit: not worth it

I realize once again you're having a hard time with this PVS but I'll do this again for you. You gave me a number of 17-20k as a minimum income to live with net. I produced some numbers awhile back and you pounced on me for showing gross income rather then net (like I can really figure everyone's tax deductions obviously you can though.) So now I am asking for you to qualify what that means more specific to the numbers you threw up there, see this would happen if you sat down with someone and had to justify that income.

I do see some merit to raising the income to that level if gov't intervention is switched off, I see absolutely little to no value if that income is achieved and govt funding/taxing didn't change.

Are you following me now, this isn't a bait and switch its having you explain/justify what you are telling me should be right.

housing (own or rent?), food(home made or packaged/order out?), clothing(pretty simple here), medical insurance(sure the poor already get insurance that work minimum wage but lets up wages and give them back to the individuals), transportation(pretty simple), basic essentials(wtf is this, I thought the things listed above were basic essentials!?).

Lets get one thing clear though, sometimes you cannot choose what life gives you but it's very clear you can choose on how you handle it and what you do to change it. Which is why I am for a mix of capitalism and some socialism.

No, as a matter of fact I am not attempting to divert any focus from your real conversation here. What I am saying is that you show me some accountability for what you say by backing up your numbers with something other then because, yeah, uh huh, you elitist, following me?

PVS

Originally posted by Soleran
I realize once again you're having a hard time with this PVS but I'll do this again for you. You gave me a number of 17-20k as a minimum income to live with net. I produced some numbers awhile back and you pounced on me for showing gross income rather then net (like I can really figure everyone's tax deductions obviously you can though.) So now I am asking for you to qualify what that means more specific to the numbers you threw up there, see this would happen if you sat down with someone and had to justify that income.

I do see some merit to raising the income to that level if gov't intervention is switched off, I see absolutely little to no value if that income is achieved and govt funding/taxing didn't change.

Are you following me now, this isn't a bait and switch its having you explain/justify what you are telling me should be right..

you asked for a figure, i gave you one off the top of my head. now you want to run with it to distract from the point. this is a sad tactic and if it were not such an obvious reference i would post it in another thread regarding idiotic tactics....so i wont. no, i will NOT break down figures with you, and factor in bus fare and rent along with the kid's summer wardrobe for the next 50 pages, just so youu dont have to look like an elitist freak. sorry, not playing along.

Originally posted by Soleran
Lets get one thing clear though, sometimes you cannot choose what life gives you but it's very clear you can choose on how you handle it and what you do to change it.

way to ignore the point. watch this: THEY DONT HAVE TO "CHANGE IT"> THEY'RE WORK IS IMPERITAVE FOR THE SURVIVAL OF OUR ECONOMY.

and in your next post, in which you will predictably and pathetically ignore this point, question just what you are trying to accomplish here.

Originally posted by Soleran
No, as a matter of fact I am not attempting to divert any focus from your real conversation here.

laughing out loud

im sorry....i normally dont reply with smilies...but what comedy!
ok, let me try: im not attempting to insult you, idiot.

Originally posted by Soleran
What I am saying is that you show me some accountability for what you say by backing up your numbers with something other then because, yeah, uh huh, you elitist, following me?

ok kids, in the future of discussing minimum wage, you may be called out on your own implication that unskilled workers do not deserve a living on the grounds that they are a burden to society, and should desire to be 'better', when in fact their work is a necessity for our society and our economy.

when it is pointed out that you are dead wrong, to win the thread, ask your opponent for a general figure of what they think would be fair. when the opponent throws out a quick number, turn that into the topic and ignore how you painted yourself in a corner. when confronted with your obvious tactic, just say your not doing it in the same post in which you do it. your opponent will then fall over laughing and hopefully become concussed and unable to retort.

FeceMan

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I thought Jesus said to watch over every sheep, not just a select few....
You're an idiot.

I'm not going to bother replying to the rest of that mish-mash of crap you wrote.

(By the way, Bush wants to lower taxes and is ANTI-JESUS: "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's," Jesus says. Therefore, lowering taxes is evil.)

PVS

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes...and?

are you asking me, or just simplifying my response?

Bardock42

Originally posted by FeceMan
You're an idiot.

I'm not going to bother replying to the rest of that mish-mash of crap you wrote.

(By the way, Bush wants to lower taxes and is ANTI-JESUS: "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's," Jesus says. Therefore, lowering taxes is evil.)

The last thing is a joke, right?

FeceMan

Originally posted by Bardock42
The last thing is a joke, right?
Yes.

(But don't tell Lord Urizen.)

Bardock42

Originally posted by PVS
are you asking me, or just simplifying my response?

I just don't get your response...I mean as stupid and pointless as the anecdote was...it wasn't part of my post.

PVS

i see.....yeah, you're right......i guess i ran with a thought and made the response inapropriate to your own post.........well lets just paint over it with another topic and look away. do you enjoy baseball bardock?

Bardock42

Originally posted by PVS
i see.....yeah, you're right......i guess i took ran with a thought and made the response inapropriate to your own post.........well lets just paint over it with another topic and look away. do you enjoy baseball bardock?

I think i would if I'd look into it, it seems enjoyable, besides it's US Americaness. Funnily enough, I am at the moment watching a Cold Case episode about a Black Baseball Player that was killed in the 60s (or something) after a game...seems to be a good episode. The racism history of your country is despicable, by the way.

Mr. Sandman

Somehow, that's ironic.

PVS

did they play baseball at auschwitz?

Bardock42

Originally posted by Mr. Sandman
Somehow, that's ironic.

Nah, it would be ironic if I would claim that my countries history is rainbows and flowers....I don't do that. Don't plan on doing that anytime soon either.

Bardock42

Originally posted by PVS
did they play baseball at auschwitz?

Dude...please no jokes about the Holocaust. My grandfather died in Auschwitz.

KidRock

Originally posted by Bardock42
Dude...please no jokles about the Holocaust. My grandfather died in Auschwitz.

What happened? He fall out of the guard tower?

Bardock42

Originally posted by KidRock
What happened? He fall out of the guard tower?

Haha...indeed, indeed.

Mr. Sandman

That was ****ed up.

I laughed anyway, but it was ****ed up.

PVS

Originally posted by KidRock
What happened? He fall out of the guard tower?
laughing out loud

holy shit, the dumb redneck made me lol

Soleran

Am I to blame you made up a number without thinking of it's value? I had to ask you for a number to see if I felt it was viable, fair or what I felt was workable. Which is why I turned around and made this comment.

Simple enough, huh.

Once again you like to get carried away quickly. I have to ask those questions because if I don't know what you think is fair then how am I to continue discussing anything with you. I mean housing could be communal living, clothing could be uniforms etc etc I don't need 50 pages but once again it would be nice to know that if you were saying social reform is good and is required then what are the norms for the society at that point.

Nope, what I have told you is that if you work for minimum wage then working the minimum number of hours isn't going to work for you. Social liberalism at its finest, everyone is equal and make everyone the same.

I wasn't talking about minimum wage you changed the discussion to livable wages I just rolled with that. I went ahead and assumed that most (not all) that work in unskilled jobs typically are replaced often especially with young folks looking for quick money so working unskilled labor until 60 aren't alot of people that I see doing that typically it's hard work and breaks your body down faster.

when it is pointed out that you are dead wrong, to win the thread, ask your opponent for a general figure of what they think would be fair. when the opponent throws out a quick number, turn that into the topic and ignore how you painted yourself in a corner. when confronted with your obvious tactic, just say your not doing it in the same post in which you do it. your opponent will then fall over laughing and hopefully become concussed and unable to retort.

I didn't know there was a win here, I didn't even look to "win" as you would put it. Maybe thats why you spend more time using angry phrases and insults then getting to the how do we make them work rather then just the why they need to be done phrases.

PVS

a break down of hypothetical spot figures to distract from the point, which you still managed to quote yet ignore. am i psychic? but feel free to go on quoting every line, filling it in with the same repetative point-dodging nonesense, and creating the illusion that you are striking down every point i've made...when you have yet to address a single one.

and dont abbreviate your quote for the 'win'. you 'simply' changed the topic to this:
Originally posted by Soleran
I do see some merit to raising the income to that level if gov't intervention is switched off, I see absolutely little to no value if that income is achieved and govt funding/taxing didn't change.

Are you following me now, this isn't a bait and switch its having you explain/justify what you are telling me should be right.

housing (own or rent?), food(home made or packaged/order out?), clothing(pretty simple here), medical insurance(sure the poor already get insurance that work minimum wage but lets up wages and give them back to the individuals), transportation(pretty simple), basic essentials(wtf is this, I thought the things listed above were basic essentials!?)

again you continue dodging the point that you consider nonskilled laborers to be deserving of penalty, and that they should choose to change. i find your continued avoidance of this sad and pathetic. really, you look sad by doing this. address the point. confirm it or take it back. maybe i misinterpreted it. then clarify it. but what you're doing now by avoiding it is just schmucktastic